Public Figures Who Won't Address The Issues
cajunkiwi
Posts: 984
Okay - how many people feel their blood start to boil when a public figure refuses to address something they've done, and instead tries to deflect the blame onto the person asking the question?
Sarah Palin couldn't name any newspapers she reads, and when people made fun of her for looking like a fool she blamed Katie Couric and "gotcha journalism."
Christine O'Donnell, who said she once dabbled in witchcraft and said masturbation was a sin, decided to stop giving interviews and said the media was out to make her look bad.
Anti-immigration commentator Lou Dobbs hired illegal immigrants to work in his stables, and at a public event held after the story broke the person introducing him on stage said that the story was a case of the media trying to take away the rights of Americans.
Just this past weekend, Meghan McCain criticized Christine O'Donnell and said she was making a mockery of running for office because, among other things, she'd lied about her education - and Republicans responded by criticizing McCain's physical appearance, making sexist remarks, and saying she (McCain) wasn't qualified to run for office herself (which would be relevant if she was running for office, but she's not).
While I don't have any examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are Democrats who have been in the same boat (said stupid things and when called out for it blamed the person calling them out).
I haven't lived in America that long, so I haven't gone through that many elections and midterm elections, but does this seem like something that's getting worse as time goes on? I don't remember it being this bad during the 2000 and 2004 elections, but that may be because I wasn't following them that closely. Have politicians (and other public figures, like Lou Dobbs) always been this bad when it comes to dealing with the responses they get to the dumb things they say? I mean, if you say/do something dumb in a public setting you have nobody to blame but yourself - don't blame the people who call attention to it. Right?
Sarah Palin couldn't name any newspapers she reads, and when people made fun of her for looking like a fool she blamed Katie Couric and "gotcha journalism."
Christine O'Donnell, who said she once dabbled in witchcraft and said masturbation was a sin, decided to stop giving interviews and said the media was out to make her look bad.
Anti-immigration commentator Lou Dobbs hired illegal immigrants to work in his stables, and at a public event held after the story broke the person introducing him on stage said that the story was a case of the media trying to take away the rights of Americans.
Just this past weekend, Meghan McCain criticized Christine O'Donnell and said she was making a mockery of running for office because, among other things, she'd lied about her education - and Republicans responded by criticizing McCain's physical appearance, making sexist remarks, and saying she (McCain) wasn't qualified to run for office herself (which would be relevant if she was running for office, but she's not).
While I don't have any examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are Democrats who have been in the same boat (said stupid things and when called out for it blamed the person calling them out).
I haven't lived in America that long, so I haven't gone through that many elections and midterm elections, but does this seem like something that's getting worse as time goes on? I don't remember it being this bad during the 2000 and 2004 elections, but that may be because I wasn't following them that closely. Have politicians (and other public figures, like Lou Dobbs) always been this bad when it comes to dealing with the responses they get to the dumb things they say? I mean, if you say/do something dumb in a public setting you have nobody to blame but yourself - don't blame the people who call attention to it. Right?
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Addicted to drugs, drug dealers fault
can't pay your mortgage because you fudged how much money you make, lenders fault.
Kids not graduating high school, it is the schools fault.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Fiorina responded by accused Wallace of asking political questions...........WTF? :shock:
the whole system is rigged. politicans lie. all of them do. its the definition of a politician.
if you are looking for presidents and politicians to address the issues, you are gonna be waiting until the next ice age friend. i wouldnt hold your breath
The problem isn't with the politicians who lie, it's with the tactic of blaming other people when they're called out for it. I usually take it as a given that a politician is lying pretty much every time he or she opens their mouth - but until recently I've never noticed them trying to blame the people calling them out for it. If I say, "Vote for me, I hate Mexicans!" and Jon Stewart takes me to task for it, there's a big difference between me replying, "I didn't say that" and replying, "The media is out to get me! This is a smear campaign!"
If Christine O'Donnell would have switched around her words, and mentioned that witchcraft was a sin and that she more then dabbles in masterbation, all would have been forgiven!
Now you have thousands of psycho bloggers going through people's pasts with fine-tooth combs and public mishaps are transmitted instantaneously around the world to our smart phones.
My point is, today's liars need to have better people skills and congeniality then the liars of yesterday.
Ain't that the truth... working with the public everyday, nothing is anyone's fault anymore... Even stupid petty shit that makes no difference, it's like is impossible for most people to admit anything was their fault.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Sarah Palin / Katie Couric .....both very beautiful women in my opinion, I don't know which one I would rather have abuse me.
Godfather.
I think it's because people are too cowardice and weak to admit anything anymore. Integrity is also out the window. So why not blame someone else? It diverts attention.
and kinda similar i remember when arnold was running for governor and a woman or two said he sexually assaulted them or whatever a long time ago he said he'd comment on it after the election was over....when asked after the election he only said something like "that's old news" and wouldn't comment further
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Thomas claimed that knowledge of Israeli nukes is very public in DC and Obama's answer showed a lack of credibility.
nice dodge Obama.
it is all about politics and maintaining relationships and alliances...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVTFP9-iQ8
if he said a country had nukes and they didn't, he wouldn't have to defend those comments to the leaders of that country. they'd just get their asses blown to pieces anyway. like Iraq. when has the US ever given a shit about mistakes.
it's so fucked up that he is protecting Israel and being all secret about the fact they have nukes and yet Iraq didn't have them and they got attacked because it was thought they did.
makes no sense at all.
do you really think he is going to throw israel under the bus like that???? he has not before and he will not now. wake up.
and obama never supported the iraq war before he ran for president, so he was not responsible for attacking them in 2003...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i'm merely suggesting he be honest and do what's right. nothing wrong speaking out about it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
uhm yeah.
right.
here's a thought,
Obama needs to grow some fucking balls. stop unconditionally supporting Israel and their rogue Government. he needs to stop simply condemning them for their actions and do something about it. stop with the billions of dollars in support and demand that they abide by International Law.
it's shouldn't be THAT hard.
as to you're people like me comment. i assume you mean people that care right?
maybe you should write him a nice letter and tell him that, because he is not going to do anything different than the presidents before him.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the fact he doesn't reply doesn't mean i'll give up fighting for what i believe in and what i think is right. the rest of you can give up and do whatever the hell you want. that's up to you.
i won't give up fighting for a fair and just peace for all the people in Palestine and Israel.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
no that's not what happened. you told me to wake up and said that nothing will change and that obama is in a no win situation.
it might be no win to you. it might be no win to the people who support Israels rogue government. personally i don't give a shit who he offends. i just want him to do the right thing.
what the fuck? i said i agree with you. he is in a bad situation. he is not a real leader because he is not decisive in his actions. he is too wishy washy and does not have the true conviction to do what you and i think is the right thing. if he did he would have done it by now. can't you see that i agree with you?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Israel only does what they do now because of U.S.support.
that's my final say on it. that's what i believe.
suppose obama's convictions are different than ours? suppose for one second that he does not care about it as much as you and i do and that he really does not care about settlement expansion. if he did he would be doing more than he is now.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Israel’s Nukes
By ERIC ETHERIDGE
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... els-nukes/
Until recently, the nuclear weapons that dominated most political discussions were the ones in North Korea, Pakistan or Iran’s future. Now, the nuclear weapons everyone wants to talk about are in Israel, a mostly undiscussed open secret for some 40 years.
Now, it seems, we can talk about them, can talk about whether Israel should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, can even talk about whether Israel’s nukes can be used in negotiations with Iran.
On Tuesday at a conference of the 189 NPT signatories, Assistant Secretary of State Gottemoeller said, “Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea … remains a fundamental objective of the United States.”
Eli Lake took that quote and ran with it in yesterday’s Washington Times:
President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
To which Joshua Pollack at Arms Control Wonk replied: “Oh, calm down.”
This is not exactly earth-shattering news. It’s the logical entailment of seeking a world without nuclear weapons. “World” would seem to indicate “everyone.” Now, it’s a safe bet that of the four states mentioned by Gottemoeller, North Korea is a lot higher on the list of America’s concerns than Israel. It’s also a safe bet that none of the four states will be joining the NPT anytime soon — rejoining it, in North Korea’s case.
Yet somehow, the Times would have us read these unobjectionable remarks as foreshadowing a demand upon Israel in particular to “come clean” about nuclear weapons, i.e., abandon its stance of “nuclear opacity,” which is designed to avoid unduly provoking the neighbors. Or perhaps they hint at coercing Israel into a Middle East Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone, which is something quite different — and something nobody outside of Riyadh imagines possible.
Pollack also points to an article in the Jerusalem Post, which quotes Israeli and American officials as saying that Gottemoeller’s comment was nothing new:
Israeli officials are also characterizing the comments as consistent with previous statements, with a Foreign Ministry officially saying “The US policy of wanting everyone to sign the NPT is well known to us,” and that “her comments were very general.”
Writing at the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb says that Gottemoeller’s comments are “absurd” (“none of these countries is going to surrender their current arsenals and allow full inspections by the international community”) but he writes that there is “evidence that the Obama administration is not like all the others that preceded it, and that it may well plan to fundamentally change the relationship between the United States and Israel.”
Evidence of that fundamental change, says Goldberg, comes from a different member of the administration:
[A] comment by Bruce Riedel, who headed the Obama administration’s “AfPak” strategy review, offers a more credible view into the administration’s thinking:
“If you’re really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later. What’s remarkable is that it’s lasted so long.”
The Obama administration may make Israel’s nuclear deterrent a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Iran — negotiations that Secretary Gates says today have only a “very remote” chance of producing a favorable outcome. It’s a big bet, but at least Obama’s playing with someone else’s security.
It’s not just Americans talking about Israel’s nukes. At Mondoweiss, Bruce Wolman writes that Egypt is getting into the act as well:
Speakers at the AIPAC policy conference [which just concluded in DC] regularly said that some Arab nations are on the same page with Israel in considering the Iranian nuclear program the biggest threat to regional stability, but the Egyptian Foreign Ministry articulated a different message yesterday.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said that Western policies aimed at “pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program will fail because they disregard Israeli nuclear capabilities.” More critically, Egypt called the Israeli nukes “the first and greatest threat to security in the region.”
At Commentary, Noah Pollak writes that “the Iranians must be watching the spectacle of the Obama administration dragging Israeli nukes into the open with amazement.”
What could be better for Iran than somebody else’s weapons becoming the object of international attention? It was always probable that Iran, in the unlikely event that it succumbed to pressure, would demand a “nuclear-free Middle East” as a last-gasp bargaining position — but who could have expected that the Obama administration would make Iran’s case for it, and long before Iran was in a position to need to do so?
At World Politics Review, Judah Grunstein writes that “any sudden shift of U.S. policy here would be counterproductive.”
Should Israel declare its nuclear status, whether because the U.S. outs it or an Iranian bomb forces its hand, the result is very likely to be an inherently unstable, because generalized, regional nuclear architecture. The overlapping and volatile faultlines in today’s Middle East, combined with the short flight times needed for delivery — meaning everyone would be on constant hair-trigger alert — add up to a worst-case scenario. . . .
The initial goals here should be an NPT-compliant Iran, and a regionally integrated Israel. End goals should be a regionally integrated Iran and an NPT-compliant Israel. Reversing the order on either is likely to accomplish neither.
Matt Yglesias says “the idea that there should be no swapping of concessions whatsoever with the Iranians highlights a certain schizophrenia in the Israel view of these matters.”
The Iranian nuclear program, we’re supposed to believe, is an overwhelming existential threat to Israel’s existence and yet it’s not worth considering any form of Israeli concessions whatsoever in order to achieve any goals whatsoever on the Iranian front? Really? And at the same time, Israel’s nuclear deterrent is so overwhelmingly important that it can’t be bargained about for any purpose, and yet its existence gives the Israelis no confidence whatsoever that a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Again, really? If I were Israel, I wouldn’t want to swap my nukes for empty promises from Iran. But if I were Israel I also wouldn’t be ruling any sort of deal whatsoever off the table in advance.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ron Paul does every time he speaks.
I thought the McCain one was interesting, because from what I can tell she was telling the truth too. She said a lot of Republicans don't like O'Donnell, and before she (O'Donnell) won, a lot of them were in fact criticizing her. Even Karl Rove criticized her, and then when she won he was suddenly on her side. Now McCain comes out and basically says, "Yeah, they still don't actually like O'Donnell" and the Republicans went after her with comments about her physical appearance, as if somehow her chest size affects whether or not she's qualified to discuss politics.
There's too much ass kissing and not enough ass kicking going on.